Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pat Buchanan sounds off on Iran nuclear negotiations
Fox News ^ | 4/1/2015 | Fox News

Posted on 04/01/2015 11:35:26 PM PDT by Usagi_yo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: Olog-hai
What was “pragmatic” about not only leaving the Lusitania unavenged,

What we need to separate are the two questions of: (1) Is it morally right for the USA to get involved in a particular war? and (2) Will the USA be better off as a nation as a result of that involvement?

Now, in the case of World War I it's appropriate to make the point that we have the benefit of hindsight. No one could know in 1917 what a colossal cock-up the Versailles treaty and the League of Nations were going to be. Cock-ups that we are still suffering from today.

But we should have taken that lesson to heart in the last sixty years - I am hard put to think of any wars the US has fought since 1950 (excepting maybe the Grenada incursion) which ended with a victorious and long-term successful result for the United States, despite the high moral purpose with which we entered into each and every one.

41 posted on 04/03/2015 7:01:59 AM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon (I wish someone would tell me what "diddy wah diddy" means.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

That answers nothing about leaving the Lusitania unavenged for nearly two years. It’s almost as bad as the Benghazi folly.

When it comes to matters such as that, George Washington’s “must be able to repel (insult)/at all times ready for war” stance is what applies. The moral question has to do with evading wars versus getting involved with them—and any war that has been fought since WWII has been without the same heart (note Truman’s firing in Korea being the start of such hobbling, and Sun Tzu’s Art Of War warns against ever hobbling your own armed forces).

BTW, we’re heading towards another chaotic world-war-like situation in spite of doing the reverse of Versailles (forgiveness of war debt towards our WWII enemies, which was the start of turning our allies against us).


42 posted on 04/03/2015 8:49:53 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Truman’s firing, i.e. of MacArthur. When the Red Chinese attacked US forces no less, and MacArthur counterattacked.


43 posted on 04/03/2015 9:40:24 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Truman’s firing, i.e. of MacArthur. When the Red Chinese attacked US forces no less, and MacArthur counterattacked.


44 posted on 04/03/2015 9:40:47 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It’s clear you have given this a lot of thought and although I disagree, I respect your point of view. Thanks FRiend.


45 posted on 04/03/2015 1:26:31 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon (I wish someone would tell me what "diddy wah diddy" means.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson